Category talk:Glossary
redirects Should redirects be included in this category? I think so... -Eep 20:57, 3 Jun 2006 (EDT) Mmmmmm... I dunno about that. I'd say no unless you intend to add different content to it later. Because why point to a redirect and not just point the the article itself? A redirect should be treated generaly as a mistake like "Oops, instead of this we say this". So I'd think it'd just end up being confusing or something. Like "Terrain" doesn't really need to be listed if "Land" is, since they're basicly the same thing, right? I would say only list actual articles. Oz Spade 00:41, 6 Jun 2006 (EDT) Well, some redirects (like terrain) are used often enough that someone looking for it might not notice land. By having alternate words for the same term in the glossary (and showing they mean the same thing on the redirected-to page), information about the general meaning is more easily accessible. Granted, I don't think avatars AND avatar should be included in the glossary since the difference is just plurality (but some like axis/axes may warrant inclusion)--same with capilization and space-difference (bodypart vs. body part) redirects, for obvious reasons. And, yes, including common-word redirects in the glossary category helps to differentiate terms that can be expanded on, if necessary, later. For example, permission types (no-copy, no-modify, and no-transfer) should appear in the glossary (even though they redirect to permissions--which I still think should be singular--as events should) because they are common terms and can be expanded on later if necessary. -Eep 01:33, 6 Jun 2006 (EDT) Yeah, the no-perms definitly. I guess if the term is varried enough, ok. Oz Spade 03:11, 6 Jun 2006 (EDT) Lets stick with numbered lists. We talked about this before, but lets stick with numbered lists. Its pretty standardly used in definition senses. So when you have different definitions for one word, use a numbered list. If theres multiple words or basicly same definitions or listings, use bullets such as the use in Type is good. Oz Spade 00:44, 6 Jun 2006 (EDT) General/Vague words Some things I think are way too general to be "hotlinked". Such as "name" or "empty" which can apply to a lot of things, such as everything in SL has a name and there are different kinds of names, residents, objects, scripts, other items, land parcels, the name of second life, how the name changed from LW to SL, etc. etc. Empty as well, empty plot, empty object, empty script, empty avatars, etc. So when a general term is used in a somewhat non-general way, I'd say rather than hotlinking and creating an article for that term, try and further explain what the usage means, like my changing of the wording in cube to explain what I meant by empty. In some cases this can't really be done. But I think we should limit how many term articles we create to stuff that can be narrowed down a bit more than a word like "is" or something. Oz Spade 03:18, 6 Jun 2006 (EDT) external links Again, the problem with adding external links to EVERY article is that it's simply annoying. How many times are you going to link to a specific function on the LSL Wiki before it gets ridiculous, Oz? For the same reason you don't link to LSL Wiki every time the LSL Wiki is mentioned, so too should external links used more than twice be handled. What if the external link changes? What if the LSL Wiki's URL changes? Do you realize how much of a pain in the ass that will be to change all external links that link to that URL?? Think, please... -Eep 22:41, 14 Jun 2006 (EDT) :Things take effort. It's a fact of life. If you think copy/pasting a link is too much trouble, then don't do it. In general, though, we shouldn't rely on external linking for clarification, your text should be clear by design. This is also a wiki primarily for SL users, and short of the odd tutorial article, we will assume that people have a working knowledge of SL. -Eggy 02:47, 15 Jun 2006 ::Um, you might want to have a chat with Oz then, Eggy, because that's not what he said to me before. He said he wants the wiki to cater to beginning SLers, too--not just experienced residents. Why make things unnecessarily difficult? I just don't get it... It's NOT the way to run an efficient wiki--that's for sure! -Eep 06:17, 15 Jun 2006 (EDT)